NATO
knew of and supported the actions of its alliance partners, the
Qataris. The UN knew or should have known that NATO was supporting
actions that violated the arms embargo and that provided ground troops
and coordination between air and ground military efforts.

The
acts of the UN and NATO show that the UN Security Council resolution
and NATO claims of honoring that resolution were fraudulent.

U.S.
Ambassador to Libya Cretz provides the proof of NATO knowledge of the
major violations of the UN resolution. From the article:

Qatar has
played 'a very influential role in helping this [Libyan] rebellion
succeed,' U.S Ambassador to Libya Gene A. Cretz said in an interview. Wall Street Journal, October 17

The
NATO alliance was obliged to keep foreign weapons, troops, and
assistance out of Libya as required by the UN resolution. The ambassador
makes it clear that the actions of the Qataris were helpful and clearly
implied that regime change was the goal, not the protection of
civilians.

The UN knew or should have known that its resolution
was being violated. Section 24 of Security Council resolution 1973 calls
for the creation of a "panel of experts" to monitor the Libyan
conflict, assure compliance with the UN mandate, and "Make
recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or State, may
consider to improve implementation of the relevant measures." UN, February 26, 2011

- Advertisement -

If
the panel of experts spoke to Ambassador Cretz or one of his peers, for
example, they would have known that the actions in the name of the UN
were diametrically opposed to the stated goals of the UN. If the "panel
of experts" didn't know that the mission was a fraud on the UN and the
people of the world, they should have. In either case, the UN is
responsible for the acts of NATO done in the name of the UN.

The
NATO mission was an attack on the Libyan government at that time
without an imminent threat to any of the nations involved. It was a
violation of international law.

International law places very strict limits on preemptive wars. This is the general outline for "anticipatory self-defense."

"The
right of anticipatory self-defense assumes that an aggressor is poised
to strike, and that one acts defensively in anticipation of the attack
rather than waiting for the attack to occur. Traditionally, it was
deemed theoretically possible that even a first-strike could be deemed
defensive in nature, and lawful, if it was to forestall an attack that
was imminent." Center for Defense Information, 2003

The
UN has some provisions in its charter for anticipatory self-defense
arising out of Security Council actions. However, there was no
self-defense asserted, no imminent danger, no war outlined. The mission
was mandated solely to protect Libyan civilians through the no-fly zone,
arms embargo, asset freeze, etc.

NATO misrepresented its role as
"nothing more, nothing less" than those actions mandated by the Security
Council resolution, 1973. By allowing in ground troops as well as
thousands of tons of weapons, and coordinating air strikes for the
benefit of opponents of the Libyan government, NATO engaged in war that
meets even the narrowest definitions of preemptive war. That is a
violation of international law.

Justice Will Not Be Forthcoming

NATO
went well beyond the bounds of the UN mandate. It allowed the mission's
one nation that was not a part of NATO, Qatar, to violate the arms
embargo, to provide troops, and to use those troops to coordinate NATO
air strikes with NTC rebels on the ground. As a result, NATO and the NTC
rebels were acting as one, fighting an aggressive war against the
Libyan government. It was a series of lies that provided the foundation
for the Libyan effort, lies that repeated principals that those directly
involved were never expected to follow.

By waging war instead of
protecting civilians, all parties to the effort engaged in an elaborate
ongoing war crime against the very civilians that they were supposed to
protect.